The Moral Maze: what are the moral underpinnings of nationalism?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03w18fl

The Morality of Nationalism
Duration: 43 minutes
First broadcast: Wednesday 26 February 2014
This week the Moral Maze looks at the morality of nationalism. In Ukraine and the UK people are fighting and in the former case dying over the idea and the ideals of nationhood. Those are just the biggest headlines today; without pausing to think too hard you might add Syria, the Basque and Catalan regions of Spain and Tibet to the list and that's just from the news in the last seven days - let alone going further back in history to the breakup of Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Chechnya and Ireland. Nationalism and the struggle for national identity is a complex moral puzzle. What makes nationalism such a powerful and morally problematic force in our lives is the interplay of old feelings of communal loyalty and relatively new beliefs about popular sovereignty. On the one hand it undoubtedly expresses something deep in human nature - a yearning for self-determination and justice. But it can also come with darker tribal undertones of "us" and "them" and has been seen all too often through ethnic cleansing and genocide. To what extent should people be permitted to act on the basis of loyalty to those to whom they are specially related by culture, race or language? Are there benign forms of nationalism? Should enlightened people repudiate nationalism? What value should we attach to cultural diversity? Given the current examples of how nationalism can sometimes seem to be a force for good, and sometimes a force for very great evil what are the moral underpinnings of nationalism?

Combative, provocative and engaging debate chaired by Michael Buerk with Melanie Phillips, Anne McElvoy, Matthew Taylor and Giles Fraser.

The best thing that was said was when one of the guests said nations are "ethically neutral".

They are a necessary evil in other words.

Human beings have to gather themselves into groups, and the nation state is one of these units they can gather themselves into.

Asking anyone if they like the idea of a nation state is like asking them if they like people, or houses, or even if they like themselves.

Sometimes we do and sometimes we don't. Houses can be nice or they can be nasty, depending on how they are run and whether they are habitable.

The nation is the biggest human grouping that is big enough to matter, but small enough to care.

The nation is also a reaction to amoral tribalism and the word ummah means nation in Arabic. Since this word has particular application to Islam, it can be translated loosely as a community of people who share the same moral outlook and recognise the same laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ummah

Islam is therefore in concept and application civic nationalist while Judaism is ethno-nationalist. Jews are not supposed to practise usury on each other, but are allowed to do so on other tribes.  Muslims are absolutely forbidden to practise it at all.  This does tend to show which religion is more "us and them", does it not, and which more racially exclusive.

The entry threshold for becoming a Muslim is rather lower than that of becoming a Jew, and this no one can deny.  To declare as the Shahada requires a convert to affirm that "There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God." This is rather easier to do than to become a Jew which requires that one's mother to be a Jewess or a long and thorough process of conversion.

It would be true to say that Islam is like a political party while Judaism is more analogous to an exclusive private club.

Is nationalism a good thing, the programme asks? Is it moral?

If it is necessary then it must be good. A country necessarily has physical borders and people living in it who have different ideas of doing things and the conflicting interests of different groups: between old and young, male and female, rich and poor, the aspirational and the established.

A nation is like a human being in many ways. It has a physical self, a mental self-image and an image of it held by others. Every now and then it has a haircut, buys new clothes, downsizes or expands. Sometimes it is nice and other times nasty.

Perhaps we should think of the nation as a collection of cells and organs, rather like our own bodies. Whether we are good, healthy, clever, happy, sane and strong depends on the ideas we embrace and practise, and the food we eat.

Just as bodies have healthy cells it can also have cancerous cells. Just like a country it has internal and external enemies. The enemy within is the struggle we have with our ourselves to avoid error, and the enemy without is other people who wish us harm or who may lead us into error.

The group most analagous to cancer cells are of course SSMs.  https://www.facebook.com/pages/Should-Spinster-Single-Mothers-be-lashed-100-times/417696111659379

The reason the Abrahamic faiths all forbid extramarital sex is to avoid the evil of widespread illegitimacy which leads inexorably to national degeneracy.  http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/why-white-race-is-declining-in-numbers.html  This theory would adequately explain why all advanced civilisations are patriarchies and practise marriage.  Feminism demonstrably undermines marriage, but liberals are loath to criticise it because it is through feminism that liberals acquire sexual liberation, which is their real sacred cow.
I will now answer the questions raised by the programme.

Q1.  To what extent should people be permitted to act on the basis of loyalty to those to whom they are specially related by culture, race or language?

A1.  The principles of liberty should permit people to act on the basis of loyalty to those who are specially related by culture, race or language.

What are the principles of liberty?

1. freedom of expression
2. freedom of contract
3. freedom of association
4. the right to property

On these grounds the decision of the Supreme Court to deny the Christian couple who ran a bed and breakfast the right to refuse to do business with a homosexual couple is clearly contrary to the principles of liberty.  

If bed and breakfast owners do not wish to do business with any of the protected groups listed in the Equality Act 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_Act_2010, then that right should be respected by good liberals everywhere, I would have thought.  Perhaps there are no good liberals anywhere any more. 

Q2.  Are there benign forms of nationalism? 

A2.  Just as there are benign dictatorships, there are benign forms of nationalism.  A good king is but a benign dictator, if you think about it.  

Q3.  Should enlightened people repudiate nationalism? 

A3.  If you agree that nationalism is the ideology of promoting the national interest, then the question to ask people who regard themselves as enlightened is to ask them how promoting the long term national interest could be described as being in any way against their principles.

Q4.  What value should we attach to cultural diversity? 

A4.  We should accept the cultural diversity we have now but not allow any more.  (Cultural diversity is a weasel word for immigration used by liberals, of course.  They like it because it is even more abstract than immigration, which everyone knows means "immigrants".)  

Q5.  Given the current examples of how nationalism can sometimes seem to be a force for good, and sometimes a force for very great evil what are the moral underpinnings of nationalism?

A5.  The moral underpinning of nationalism is good government, for it is only good government that will prevent social fragmentation, crime and disorder, war and revolution.  

British Democratic Party launch reviewed

http://nationalistunityforum.co.uk/index.php/recording-of-the-first-part-of-the-saturday-9th-february-2013-meeting/

Kevin Scott, said that the new party would respect the rights of those legal immigrants and their descendants to remain in the UK without fear or hindrance. 

You would have thought they have learnt not to say things like that any more.   The lady doth protest too much!  This is from http://nationalistunityforum.co.uk/index.php/british-democratic-party-launches-in-leicester/

The most important and interesting speech is Adrian Davies' who speaks approvingly of the success of Marine Le Pen and Front Nationale.  Her father Jean Marie has been nagging British nationalists to unequivocally embrace civic nationalists since 2004, advice that Nick Griffin would do well to follow.   The singular lack of urgency that characterises British nationalism is something about which British nationalists ought to be thoroughly ashamed.

Sadly, however, a singular lack of shame is yet another badge of British nationalism.

http://nationalistunityforum.co.uk/index.php/bdp-launch-part-2-audio/

The most interesting speech  from the above link is Andrew Brons', who confuses nationality with race.   He wants citizenship only to be given on grounds of nationality, and nationality as far as he is concerned is about race.

If only British nationalists would drag themselves out of the primeval swamp of ethno-nationalism and take a dip in the pool of inclusive nationhood as defined by the Islamic concept of a racially neutral ummah.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ummah

Someone suggested that members be made to sign up to the party's principles and  it had to be pointed out by Adrian Davies that BDP cannot exclude anyone on grounds of race, because that is now the law, unless they fancy spending a hundred thousand pounds or thereabouts disputing this in court.

The BDP is clearly more "racial" and more full of unreconstructed ethno-nationalists  than the BNP who have modernised to the extent that it now describes itself in its constitution at 3.2.1 in these terms:

"Our party is a party of British nationalism, both ethnic and civic".   

It is terribly disheartening that they still do not understand why civic nationalism is the only way forward.  To succeed, they must be ideologically more civic than the BNP, but they went the other way instead.   I suppose that is the reason why Kevin Scott the Chairman excluded me from attending without deigning to give a reason.

I just feel a bit sorry for these people who are now going to have their time and money wasted, because they do not see the point of having ideological clarity.  Most of them are grateful to have something to do after being kicked out of the BNP, I suppose.  They are taking the middle way between the NF and the BNP when what is required is for a party that takes the middle way between the BNP and UKIP.

Yes, they are dunces and dunderheads, mules and fatheads, and there is nothing I can do about it.

To be associated with a movement that is always shooting itself in the foot and putting its bloodied limb in its mouth is something I must continue to put up with, I suppose.  

Doubtless, if I were white and male they would be begging me to lead them.  However, because I am female and foreign, they will ignore everything I say, just because they wish to do the opposite of what I say.

Never mind, when things get bad enough, they will remember that I told them so, and come to me begging  me to be their leader.

As ever, I intend to be magnanimous in victory, and graciously accept.   To err is human, to forgive divine.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/327008697419786/
Who should lead the nationalist movement if not Nick Griffin?

What is nationalism?

1. It is the idea that the biggest gang you can be in that is big enough to matter and small enough to care is the nation.

2. The nation consists of different tribes who have agreed to become or remain a part of that nation because the benefits are perceived to be greater than the cost.

3. The purpose of nationalism is to promote the long term national interest.

4. If (3) is true then it is incumbent on any nationalist to discuss the subject of eugenics and to promote it through recognising the primacy of the institutions of marriage and family and acknowledging how feminism has desecrated those two institutions through causing widespread illegitimacy and degeneracy.

Ethno-nationalism is nothing more than whingeing and asking for things that you should already now know you will never get ie forcible repatriation of other races, apartheid and racial privileges.

That is why it is a DEAD DUCK.

However, there is nothing stopping you from preferring your own people within a legal system that is racially neutral.

Ummah translates itself as nation from the Arabic.

I prefer this version of nationhood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ummah

That is so much better than ethno-nationalism which proposes the forcible repatriation of non-white British citizens, apartheid or racial privileges, which only makes nationalists feared, hated and despised for being socially retarded and politically unrealistic.

Racially neutral but radical civic nationalism will be quite exciting enough.  Please do not think it is going to be boring just because you find UKIP and the English Democrats deadly dull.

I am a Nationalist, not a racist or an antisemite

What is a nationalist?

Someone who believes in a policy of acting in the National Interest.

What is a racist?

Someone who believes that race is a sufficient reason for the inclusion or exclusion of someone from a nation.

Is Claire Khaw a racist?

No, because I have been saying for some time now that a nationalist by definition cannot be a racist.

Why is racism incompatible with nationhood?

Because the idea of a nationhood logically transcends the idea of race and tribe.  A nation is by definition a collection of tribes who have decided to form themselves into a nation for reasons of self-preservation and self-advancement.

What is an antisemite?

Someone who hates Jews and Zionists because they are Jews and Zionists.

Is Claire Khaw an antisemite?

No, because I think Jews are the teacher's pet in a class of bullies and dunces who envy the teacher's pet but refuse to work hard while not being particularly clever.   Jews are perhaps just a global metaphor for "the rich and powerful who exploit the poor" even in countries where there are no significant numbers of Jews.  During the Cultural Revolution in Communist China, the "Jews" of China were the landlords, businessmen, middle classes, academics and people formerly in authority.

Is Claire Khaw attempting to redefine nationalism, which most nationalists seem to think is racial segregation?

Yes, because I think that definition is logically incorrect.  The idea of a greater nationhood transcribes the narrow and amoral considerations of race and tribe.   "Ummah" - the Muslim version of Christendom - is the perfect expression - a nation of shared values.   We can change our minds, but not the colour of our skin.   Also, if we sent everyone home to wherever we were supposed to come from, most Americans would end up back in Europe, which would clearly make it too crowded.

Is Claire Khaw a National Socialist?

Yes, she is a CIVIC National Socialist because a nationalist would want social cohesion, and social cohesion can only come with the Social Justice that comes with a Meritocracy.  A one-party state (which is the real essence of National Socialism) that protects the rights of its members by abolishing the office of the party whip as proposed by Peter Bone MP in the House of Commons (Disqualification) Bill would be just the thing to balance Statist policies with Libertarian policies, allowing party members to vote according to their conscience rather than what is deemed by their amoral leaders to be in the short-term party interest, rather than the long-term National Interest.  http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2010/10/peter-bone-seeks-to-abolish-the-flatterers-cajolers-and-sometime-bullies-that-are-the-party-whips.html

What has Claire Khaw to say to White Nationalists?

Get real and ask yourselves if you really think you are in a position to say "It is all or nothing" and expect to get your all.   You can keep saying in your manifestos that you want to forcibly repatriate non-white British citizens, but you already know saying that has got you nowhere at all.   An enlightened member of the BNP once told me that, realistically, the only people even a BNP government can forcibly repatriate are illegal immigrants.

Is it time nationalists stopped being the Stupid, Angry, Bitter, Plebeian and Unable to Compete with Foreigners Party?

That question I will leave other nationalists to answer.   

Islam gave Man the Idea of Nationhood

In pre-Islamic times people lived in tribes and loyalty was to the tribe in quite an amoral way. That was because if your tribe did not protect you, then you would have no protection at all as an individual. 


It could be said that with Islam came the origins of nationhood.


Tribes can be people of the same race. 


Different tribes can agree to put their differences aside and become a nation. 


Do they have to be of the same race?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ummah suggests that a nation just means people of different races agreeing to regard themselves as one despite tribal and racial differences as long as they agree to adhere to a common set of rules and a common outlook on morality.


From this idea came the idea of a nation being bigger and better than a tribe, because only a nation is in fact small enough to care and big enough to matter.  


Apart from giving the warring tribes of Arabia a bigger and better concept of human organisation, I like to think that the Koran is a kind of tick list of success or failure. The more your society adheres to it, the more likely you are to be successful.


Of course there are plenty of Muslim nations who do call themselves Muslim but do not in fact do what the Koran says. 


There are even nations that are unconsciously Muslim, and I would suggest that Britain in a previous age was more Muslim then than now, even though there are more Muslims here now.


The more Koranic commandments your society follows, the more likely it is to be peaceful and flourishing.  


The more it strays from the Koran, the more disordered and self-destructive it becomes.  


Gaddafi's troubles had a lot to do with not fixing the divisiveness of the tribal system in Libya. He thought it was enough to prefer his own dominant tribe, when it was in fact necessary as an act of nation-building to abolish the tribal system altogether.


We too are also far astray from the right path.

How Gaddafi may have failed as a nationalist

While Gaddafi regards himself as an African nationalist, I think I have finally alighted upon how he might have failed as a nationalist leader.


He failed as a nationalist leader because he failed to extinguish the tribalism that should have been extinguished if Libya was to call itself properly a nation.  


Nationhood is a collective consciousness of their desire to in the same group that transcends race and class because it is perceived that their long term best interests would be better protected than previously.

Map of the traditional regions of Libya

Clearly, Gaddafi failed to unite all these regions into a cohesive sense of nationhood and he failed to make alliances with China and/or Russia to protect himself from the West.  


 ‎'Ummah' - the Muslim version of Christendom - is sometimes translated as nation. This demonstrates that the concept of nation is greater than that of race.


Civic nationalism is the only true form of nationalism and ethno-nationalism is just divisive tribalism glorified.


The concept of nation transcends race. They are not the same thing or they would not be two different words. The former is abstract, nobler and harder to grasp, and the other refers to the colour of a person's skin.


Nationalism ought really be a pragmatic ideology of the serving the National Interest, and the National Interest is nothing more and nothing less than a judicious balance of the conflicting interests of those who form part of that nation.


Let us then define Nationalism in the only rational way it can be defined as - a concept which simultaneously transcends race and leaves you free to be with your own kind, if that is what you wish.  


http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2011/07/debunking-ethno-nationalism-once-and.html

BNP Friends of Israel?

http://www.ukipfoi.co.uk/

If UKIP have their very own Friends of Israel Group, is it not time the BNP had its own Friends of Israel, for reasons of funding and electoral respectability?

Zionism and British Nationalism after all have much in common as they both support Ethno-Nationalism.

Recently UKIP has been given the seal of approval by Marine Le Pen who is anxious to promote Civic Nationalism in Front Nationale.

There is also some debate on the subject of Ethno v Civic Nationalism in the BNP too.  I am definitely a Civic Nationalist for pure reasons of electoral appeal.   Islam would of course promote Civic Nationalism with its concept of the ummah - the Muslim version of Christendom.   (Basically, this means making a point of having a sense of community with people who share the same views and beliefs as you, rather than accepting or rejecting them on the basis of race.)  The Koran quite specifically states that all races are equal and that every man should be judged according to his good works.

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/049.qmt.html

049.013

YUSUFALI: O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).

PICKTHAL: O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. Lo! Allah is Knower, Aware.

SHAKIR: O you men! surely We have created you of a male and a female, and made you tribes and families that you may know each other; surely the most honorable of you with Allah is the one among you most careful (of his duty); surely Allah is Knowing, Aware.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/8227773/David-Cameron-must-face-the-challenge-of-Islamisation.html

If the Israelis would like to get in touch with the BNP and state what donations would be given for what policies they want in the BNP manifesto, I am sure the Chairman and the membership will listen with great interest.

Since I see Nationalism is an ideology of national self interest, I see do not see that the national interest of Israel would necessarily be to the detriment of British national interest.   It just depends on what the Israelis want of the BNP, which has to be judged on its merits on an ad hoc basis.  

I think it would be good if the Israelis recommended that the THOUGHTCRIME of Holocaust Denial be repealed in all countries where it exists, because the existence of Holocaust Denial laws gives rise to the impression that there is a Jewish conspiracy and make non-Jews hate Jews for their special status victimhood that limits the free speech of historians from speaking certain numbers.  

I wonder what they will ask of the BNP in return.

Judaism Explained before Easter

A recent decision by Orthodox Jews to bar a child of a mother who is a convert to Judaism from attending a Jewish school because the child was insufficiently Jewish explains exactly why Christ had such a problem with Judaism.

Unfortunately, he paid for his audacity with his life. His followers invented the story of his Resurrection and the "theory" of the Holy Trinity to make Christ's ignominious death less upsetting for those disposed to become Christians.

The Koran explicitly acknowledges Christ for extending monotheism to gentiles. Christ's crime, as seen by the Jewish priests, was in wishing to spread the benefits of monotheism to those not members of the Jewish tribes. It was Christ acting to end the Jewish monopoly on monotheism that resulted in his execution.

Muhammad developed on Christ's theme, ie that faith alone - not race - is sufficient to avail oneself of the benefits of monotheism. Christ must have concluded that, in order for a better world to be created, monotheism must not remain the exclusive preserve of the Jewish tribes. The Islamic concept of "ummah" - a community of Muslims united by a common belief that does not exclude anyone on grounds of race - is an excellent expression of this ideal. This is far more powerful, in the opinion of this atheist, than the racial exclusivity of the Jews and the Trinitarian incoherence of the Christians.

It would seem that Christianity and Islam share the same aim, that of making monotheism more accessible to others not born into the faith, while Orthodox Judaism has a tendency to be exclusive and restrictive. While Judaism requires a typical male convert to undergo circumcision - an eye-wateringly painful operation in the apprehension of the average male - Islam does not require this.

It was really all a dispute about intellectual property and copyright, folks!